Xinfu Li v. USCIS Los Angeles Asylum Office

C.D. California

Xinfu Li v. USCIS Los Angeles Asylum Office

DecidedFebruary 7, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-08557

StatusUnknown

This text of Xinfu Li v. USCIS Los Angeles Asylum Office (Xinfu Li v. USCIS Los Angeles Asylum Office) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Xinfu Li v. USCIS Los Angeles Asylum Office, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-08557-AB-AFM Document8 Filed 02/07/23 Pagelof1 Page ID #:46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.: CV 22-08557-AB (AFMx) Date: February 7, 2023

Title: Xinfu Li v. USCIS Los Angeles Asylum Office

Present: The Honorable ANDRE BIROTTE JR., United States District Judge Carla Badirian N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Appearing None Appearing

Proceedings: [In Chambers] Order To Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution

Plaintiff(s) are ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (Court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion). The below time period(s) has not been met. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff(s) to show cause, in writing, on or before February 24, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. This matter will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff(s) response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. ) Defendant(s) did not answer the complaint, yet Plaintiff(s) have failed to request entry of default, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Plaintiff(s) can satisfy this order by seeking entry of default or by dismissing the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Case 2:22-cv-08557-AB-AFM Document8 Filed 02/07/23 Pagelof1 Page ID #:46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.: CV 22-08557-AB (AFMx) Date: February 7, 2023

Title: Xinfu Li v. USCIS Los Angeles Asylum Office

Present: The Honorable ANDRE BIROTTE JR., United States District Judge Carla Badirian N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Appearing None Appearing

Proceedings: [In Chambers] Order To Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution

Plaintiff(s) are ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (Court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion). The below time period(s) has not been met. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff(s) to show cause, in writing, on or before February 24, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. This matter will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff(s) response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Failure to respond will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. ) Defendant(s) did not answer the complaint, yet Plaintiff(s) have failed to request entry of default, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Plaintiff(s) can satisfy this order by seeking entry of default or by dismissing the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Xinfu Li v. USCIS Los Angeles Asylum Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xinfu-li-v-uscis-los-angeles-asylum-office-cacd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack